L. D. Hurst

L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Paper. Pp. xiv + 209. ISBN 0-521-67340-2

L. D. Hurst believes that the description “without father, without mother, without genealogy” (7:3) better applies to the letter of Hebrews than one of its prominent characters. One has to agree with Hurst here. Authorship, date, provenance, and background have all evaded scholars for the last century and may continue to do so for an unforeseeable future. Hurst hopes to quell this fire by entering into the debate regarding the background of the OT.

Hurst begins with a brief survey of the debate. The issue of background began once scholarship divorced it from Pauline authorship. Once this sever was made, scholarship argued that it was radically unlike Paul. Alexandria became the background of the letter finding the climax of this thought with the publication of Spicq’s commentary in 1952. At the same time, the scrolls from Qumran were discovered along with the fragmentary text of 11QMelchizedek. Upon this discovery, a new milieu was now posited. Since then several other backgrounds have been suggested such as Samaritan, Merkebah mysticism, and Gnosticism (which was explored before hand by Ernst Käsemann). Thus Hurst’s study shall clarify this issue by analyzing each background separately to determine its weaknesses and strengths. Hurst notes that once a prior decision regarding background is made, this determines the exegetical decisions made. So the aim here is to see if another system most satisfactory accounts for the background to the letter. Hurst makes his presupposition clear that the OT was a major influence on the letter, and this is because the large amount of LXX quotations throughout the book.

Chapter 1 is part of the non-Christian background section. It explores Philo, Alexandria and Platonism. As mentioned about, Alexandria/Philo is the assumed background to the letter. This has been seriously challenged by C. K. Barrett who states that the data in Hebrews can be better accounted if one acknowledges a Jewish-apocalyptic framework. In spite of Barrett’s effort, dualism is still seen as central to the letter and thus the Philo/Plato background is still widespread. Hurst states that scholarship needs to accept the work of Barrett and Williamson who have challenged a Philo background. He adds that terms such as upodeigma, skia, antitupos, eikon, pragma, and alethinos have a wider range of meaning than argued by most scholar. Once one gives up the presupposition that these are Platonic/Philonic terms then one can see that these terms actually suggest a Jewish-apocalyptic background. Hurst then states that even if Hebrews contains a vertical dimension (i.e. earth and heaven dichotomy) this does not necessarily mean that it is resorting to an Alexandriam philosophical influence, but rather there is evidence of a vertical dimension within a Christian eschatological framework (ex. Col 3:14). He proceeds by showing that the discussion about a heavenly/eternal tent (8:5ff) is better understood as referring to an actual tent that will be built by God in the end time similar to 1 Enoch 90 (in contrast to a spiritual tent already present). Also eternal, while meaning pre-existent in some contexts, can mean pre-determined by God, thus existing eternally in his plan. Thus Hurst shows that the data used to bolster an Alexandrian background can actually be argued in favour of Jewish apocalyptic background.

The second chapter explores Qumran as a possible background. Some have argued that Hebrews was written to Qumranites or previous Qumranites. Others deny this possible connection. Horton shows that the several points of possible contact do not necessarily argue in favour of a Qumran background. Only a few shall be noted here. Some say that since Qumran shows indications of angel worship, Hebrews 1 and 2 are a polemic against such thought. But Horton shows that Hebrews is not interested in angels because of angel worship, but the linchpin of the angel argument is 2:2 where the angels are the mediator of the old covenant. Thus the polemic is against the old covenant and Christ being mediator of a superior new covenant. Some think that the combination of a Levitical and Davidic messiahs in Hebrews is a polemic against the two Messiahs tradition in Qumran where a Levitical messiah overshadows the Davidic. Hurst questions this tradition stating that the presence of two messiahs has a slender foundation. Furthermore, Hebrews is not interested so much in David but rather in the whole OT sacrificial system. Another point of comparison is the relation of 11QMelchizedek. Hurst finds differences between both texts too numerous. Hebrews does not consider Melchizedek as angel and is not too concerned about subordinating him to Jesus. Hurst concludes by noticing that any points of contact between Qumran and Hebrews require distorting the Hebrews text.

Chapter 3 is the final chapter that engages with non-Christian backgrounds. The first is pre-Christian Gnosticism. Like the above, Hurst begins with a history of discussion, points of contact, and how they can be shown to fail. Areas of contact are: wandering/pilgrim theme, Sabbath rest, redeemed redeemer, faith, and dualism. All of these areas take on characteristic Gnostic notions. For example, faith is understood as a pilgrimage to the heavenly world by an intellectual ascent primarily interested in penetrating the unknown. Hurst goes on to show that this is seriously flawed exegesis of Hebrews and this data can be better be accounted for by OT background. E. A. Knox has argued that Hebrews was written for Samaritan Christians with notable comparisons such as lack of interest in David, support of the tabernacle (the Samaritans were not interested in the temple in Jerusalem), polemic against Moses whom the Samaritans regarded highly, and others. Hurst admits that this looks promising at first glance, but the data seems to go against it. Hebrews never really argues against Moses, Hebrews is concerned with OT institutions which naturally lead discussion to the tabernacle, and David is not discussed probably because of his associations with earthly security and power, something which Hebrews discourages. Most importantly, Hebrews employs many non Pentateuchal texts. The last possible background is Merkebah Mysticism. Though there are many similarities, they can all be accounted for by having a common basis in the OT. Thus Hurst finds non-Christian backgrounds lacking.

Part 2 examines Christian backgrounds. Chapter 4 discusses the Stephen tradition in Acts 7. Hurst finds that the OT tradition depicted in Acts 7 is very close to that of Hebrews. Both share that the law did not reach its goal and its inability to deal with the hardness of heart. With reference to the temple, both are concerned with treating as final and ultimate what God intended to be earthly and provisional making reference to Exod 25:40. Both share that the habitation of any land and the security it may invite was never guaranteed by God to be the final place. Both see angelic mediation is set in context of disobedience. These are just some of the areas of contact. A doubt for Hurst is the omission of priests in Acts 7. This could be accounted for by positing that Hebrews could add freely to Acts (although this assumes that Hebrews was written second). If Luke is a source for Hebrews, this may point to a relatively early collection of OT traditions.

Chapter 5 explores Pauline theology. Hurst finds at least 10 areas where Pauline theology and Hebrews do not agree. At the same time Hurst notes 26 areas where they make contact. Hurst then argues for a moderate position where Paul and Hebrews come close to one another. Both see two successive stages of human history. There are areas of similarity between Phil 2:5-11 and Hebrews. Stress is placed on obedience of Christ. Christ is made into the likeness of men. Christ acquires an exalted name. There are differences at the same time, there is no kenosis in Hebrews. Christ is made lower than the angels in Hebrews. The name given to him is Christ’s alone in Philippians, whereas it is shared with other in Hebrews (2:10). Faith is obedience in both traditions. It is also faith in God’s abilities to keep promises. Hurst concludes that the differences point to lack of literary dependence but similarities indicate interaction with the same ideas.

Chapter 6 looks at the possible relationship between First Peter and Hebrews. Though there are many points of contact, these can be argued for by various factors such as common idioms, independent use of the OT, a common Christian tradition, and Pauline influence. All that can be said is that 1 Peter and Hebrews belong to the same type of early Christian literature used to encourage others under persecution.

So Horton concludes this book by noting that Philo, Qumran, Gnosticism, the Samaritans and Merkebah Mysticism cannot account for much of Hebrews. Positively, there are many points of contact between Hebrews and Acts 7 with many affinities to Paul. Hurst though believes that all backgrounds are partially correct and may play some role since they are all wrestling with the same OT. In the end though, Hurst believes that the author of Hebrews when converted searched the LXX for the proper meaning of Christian life and found the psalms and cult compelling along with the Christian use of Pss 8 and 110 with later exposure to an Acts 7 tradition. Once exposed to Paul and Jewish apocalyptic, this crystallized his thinking.

Although this book is Hurst’s dissertation, it is written at a level such that the informed reader can follow his arguments. He explains the secondary sources well and presents both sides of every argument. This allows the reader to evaluate each of his arguments. One wonders though how successful Hurst is.

His conclusion is that a Christian background better accounts for the peculiarities in Hebrews than the non-Christian backgrounds. This reviewer finds that this conclusion was inevitable because Hurst presupposed that the OT was the major influence to Hebrews (p.4). To argue this is really saying nothing. This is obvious since he admits that all traditions are interacting with the same OT texts (p.132). Hurst admits that one’s presuppositions decide one’s exegesis (p.4). It seems that this is exactly what happened. Hurst actually assumed that a Christian reading of the OT was the major influence of this book. But this is rather obvious considering that Hebrews is part of the Christian tradition. It is a book interacting with the relationship of Christ to the OT cultic system. But all the scholars interacted with throughout Hurst’s book would acknowledge that the OT and Christian influence are central to Hebrews. What is really at stake is what other conceptions or tools are used or argued against in Hebrews. Hurst’s subtitle is misleading, rather than background to Hebrews, backgrounds would be a better term. Hurst is successful in arguing that the above traditions are not the main traditions behind Hebrews. But the background of a person’s thought is a lot more complex than one background. It usually involves a melody of different systems. Although Horton admits this (p.132), maybe this should have been approached. Is it possible that a pre-Gnostic background is merged with a Qumran tradition which forms a milieu? Could Philo be reflected in Paul who is then reflected in Hebrews? Maybe the background of Hebrews is actually a mixture of all the backgrounds? If the OT is the background for Hebrews then how does this compare to Jewish backgrounds? One area that is lacking in this book is possible similarities between Hebrews use of the OT and other Jewish systems of exegesis. Could pre-Rabbinic exegesis be a possible background to Hebrews? This seems to be completely ignored in this book. Apart from this, though, Hurst has successively shown that the above traditions are not the primary background to the book of Hebrews.… (mais)